The Art of the Greenland Deal

To say Europe is in a tricky situation over Greenland would be an understatement, but this is a crisis we shouldn’t be wasting. In fact, we should be immediately grabbing this opportunity to reassert the EU’s relevance on the world stage.

Rather than engaging at EU level, Trump is singling out Denmark. But let’s not forget that the EU has the collective economic weight to make big deals, and the only predictable thing about Trump is that he likes to do big deals. We could tempt him with an offer. We could be throwing our weight into a reinvigoration of the transatlantic partnership, thereby strengthening the EU and showing our enemies that reports of our decline have been greatly exaggerated.

First, some background. The Greenland debate didn’t come out of nowhere. Since the establishment of NATO, Greenland has been a strategic territory for the Alliance. As a halfway base between the US and Europe, Greenland has hosted US troops and aircraft under a US-Denmark Defence Agreement which was signed in 1951 and amended as recently as 2020. It is no surprise that the Northern Atlantic and Arctic are areas of increasing interest for Great Powers, most famously because of emerging new trade routes opening up due to climate change.

But trade routes are not the only reason to be interested in the region. It is also, as Trump has so loudly confirmed, strategically important for defence. During the First Cold War, the Soviet Union was eager to limit NATO operating capabilities in the Northern Atlantic. In the unfolding Second Cold War, China and Russia have the same interests—they are eager to set up listening posts, patrol the North Atlantic with submarines and engage in shadow activity in the cable-heavy parts of the Ocean. It’s no surprise that the largest embassy in Reykjavik is Chinese.

Greenland’s inching closer to independence is attracting even more Chinese curiosity, and with that comes more Western concern. I can imagine that in the meeting rooms of the security think tanks this question was raised: “What should the US do if there is increased Chinese influence in the Northern Atlantic?”. I can also imagine that this issue was offered to the President as a talking point. And now—we are where we are.

Why don’t we just let Denmark handle this?

Borders are an agreed principle, they do not change according to unilateral desires. “We need it for security reasons” is the oldest trick in the book, and this trick is often backed up by military force. You know the parallels I am talking about. 

Putin’s and Xi’s ideal world is divided into influence zones according to fiat, not international agreements and the rule of law. In this world nobody would have to defend smaller countries, so they would be easily available for absorption by empires. If we start neglecting the rules-based order ourselves, Putin and Xi will be very pleased that we have accepted their version of reality.

They also love to see us distracted. The busier we are solving issues among ourselves—the less time we have to worry about our enemies. And who knows, our alliances might simply break up, leaving us exposed. With these very real risks ahead we shouldn’t even contemplate standing idly by during a deepening conflict between democratic partners.

The damage that would be caused to NATO if Denmark, one of the founding members, would be forced to go solo against the United States would be immeasurable. Transatlantic bonds would be strained to breaking point, Europe’s defendability would deteriorate.

All this means that Denmark should not and must not be left to deal with this alone. Europe, if it is to survive, must be one for all, and all for one.

The China Plan must be cremated and buried forever 

Standing in solidarity with Denmark is vital, but Europe, even when combined, doesn’t have enough leverage to pick a fight with America. So some people see the answer in closer cooperation with China as a counterbalance to US domination. However, this China Plan is one of the less intelligent ideas floating around, to put it politely.

Facing facts: Europe has never been more vulnerable and “zeitenwende” hasn’t escaped the realm of fiction. Europe is not being taken seriously on the world stage, whether in Greenland or Ukraine or anywhere else. Any flirting with China would immediately destroy our last shred of credibility with the current US administration and gift them a good reason to throw us to the wolves. Seeking China’s “assistance” would mean creating dependence on an authoritarian regime that shares more interests with Russia than with the EU. It would be like jumping out of the frying pan, into the melting core of a collapsed nuclear power station.

The EU must do a deal, but not with Xi

As I have shown, the EU can’t afford to abandon Denmark, can’t wait for the US to change course, and can’t go running to Xi for help. All those options would cause champagne to be opened in Moscow in celebration of our imminent demise.

We are left with only one option, and it isn't even a bad option—we can do a deal with Trump.

We can’t survive long without the absolutely vital transatlantic friendship, so instead of picking a fight, the EU has to patiently convince the US that the rules-based status quo is in their best interests, and that abandoning this principle in Europe would simply create a huge opportunity for China and Russia. Nobody in the White House wants that, do they.

The EU actually has plenty to offer. The deal could be negotiated to give Trump a significant win to show his people, without the EU giving up on international law. The EU, with its huge buying power, can offer to purchase game-changing amounts of gas, oil and weapons made in American factories, creating American jobs. And those are exactly the things we need to buy anyway—weapons to deter Russia militarily, oil and gas to replace Russia economically.

At the same time we can increase sanctions on Russia’s energy exports, kneecapping an aggressor. Simply picking up the phone and suggesting such an idea would reassure Trump that the EU is moving away, not towards, China.

The deal I am suggesting wouldn’t be permanent, because after years of peacetime investment the EU would be strong enough to fight alongside the US as equals, rather than being discarded by the US as useless. We would have the capacity to defend our borders and skies without major assistance, just as Trump wants us to. But all this is not going to happen overnight, and not fast enough to fend off a steady Russian advance.

So what are we waiting for? A miracle?

Sealing a win-win EU-US deal right now would be smart cooperation, not embarrassing capitulation. But what’s scaring me, as I write this, is the ominous silence from Brussels, the absence of any initiative to put something on the table. I can almost hear the wishful thoughts that this will all blow over, or that China can become an honest partner despite being allied with our biggest threat.

Europeans searching for a way out of the current awkwardness should be starting negotiations with Washington, not flirting with Beijing. To save the EU we don’t need Nord Stream 3 or Chinese cars. We need solidarity in the face of adversity, mutual understanding with the most powerful ally in the world, and the good sense to play the strongest cards in our hand, not the cards we should have thrown away years ago.